White v. University of Ottawa, 2010 HRTO 116

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Svetlana White

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 116

Indexed as: White v. University of Ottawa

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 2129, dismissing the Application.

2On April 15, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

45.7 (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:

A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a. there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b. the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c. the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d. other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4In my Decision, I held that the applicant had not established that she was refused admission to the Ottawa University Faculty of Law because she was from Russia.

5The thrust of Ms. White’s submissions merely reiterate arguments made at the Case Resolution Conference hearing. It is evident that she disagrees with the outcome.

6The Request for reconsideration is denied.